You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

I just want to see how things go when the playcalling isn't so horrid at the start. At the beginning of the game, the D was putting a lot of hits on Stafford and he looked rattled. If Gabbert had been allowed to sling it at the start, maybe things would have been different.

Imagine:

Jarvis Jones, Aaron Dobson, Kenjon Barner

Gives us another look (and a versatile one) at RB and another WR to play with that could actually go up for the ball. Would fit nicely in a group consisting of him, Shorts, Blackmon, Robinson, and Elliot.

Then with Jones we have a reliable OLB who can also be VERY effective in the pass rush. Similar to Von Miller but with better ability as a natural 4-3 OLB as well. At LB, that'd give us at least Poz, Allen, Stanford, and Jarvis. Then add in Daryl if he is back. I think Session's career is over, but include him if he is able to return as well.

I'm not necessarily sold on the specific players, but i think that's the right path to take here. Build the defense. Give Gabbert one more year, and all the weapons in the world, and if it all goes belly up for Blaine after all, so what? We've still put key pieces in place which will allow a new 'elite QB' to come in and succeed as a rookie. It's kinda like the Redskins did with RGIII, except we'd have youth rather than a lot of aging vets around him. Having a new QB come in with good weapons and protection is a good thing.

I really do want to see us just come out in a game with playcalling that says, 'no [inappropriate/removed] given'. Aggressive and confident, like we've got a purpose and intentions on the endzone. No more of this wading in cautiously with a collection of 3 and outs and standing around with slightly damp trousers.

It really feels like this team is in the middle of an identity crisis. We're still acting like we want to be an old school 'grind it out' sort of team to start games, and it doesn't really jive with what we're having success with on the field or what we're trying to build towards.

Adrenaline_Flux wrote:

A lot of projected talent at pass rusher, WR, and LB in this draft so we should see guys drafted at each of those positions. QB is relatively weak, but I'd like to see us take one later. Alex Carder is someone I'd be interested in taking ~6th round or so.

Yeah. I hope whoever is running our team come draft day, is highly cognisant of this. Sort of, 'reading the draft'. Dip into the deep pools of a given year. And this year looks like it could be a blessing with the quality depth at positions of need for us. There's potential to grab a solid potential starter at LB, pass rusher, and WR in the same draft. No point trying to force an 'elite pick' at a position that isn't as deep or exceptional this year (ie. QB). There are however, a handful of interesting developmental types at QB in this draft. So go to the well there instead.

Its A Sabotage wrote:

iPwn wrote:

I don't even know what to think. I really don't.

I honestly do not think an "elite" rookie QB fixes this team.
Eugene Smith, great
Blackmon, Robinson, Spurlak, not great
Shorts, Lewis, great
Jennings, not great
Eugene Monroe, great
Rest of Oline, not great

Defense? Dumpster fire

Yeah. Even if we were to grab an 'elite' QB in the draft, i don't see that fixing the problems here. I think we ought to give Gabbert a real chance to succeed before we completely turn the page and essentially burn away that high 1st rounder we used on the kid. And he is just a kid really, still younger than a lot of 'rookies' this year, and he has shown some positive signs. The idea that we're going to find an 'elite' QB in this draft is also fairly dubious to me at this point. Smith has a lot of questions for me, Wilson's upside seems like a Romo-type with serious durability (concussion) issues, Barkley is extremely underwhelming.

We've got a few pieces in place, and some depth guys. But as listed, we have basically only a few really excellent starters on the offense. We've basically got:

LT-Monroe. TE-Lewis. WR3?-Shorts III.

and then Blackmon as potentially decent WR2 if he gets his act together eventually. Brewster as a potentially decent LG if he continues to develop and keep up his level of play.

And i'd argue that Jennings isn't as bad as some are making it sound. He's clearly not going to be the 'feature back' all by his lonesome, and he goofed up with that interception today, but it looked like a bit of a wonky throw and he comes back with a pretty good grab on that 2pt conversion and a few other decent plays. He's useful as a pass-catcher despite the INT today. He'll be cheap, seems to have a good attitude, and I think he'd be absolutely fine as one part of a tandem alongside more of a bruiser back. A real 'tandem' system of sorts alongside another #1ish back with a different skillset. Or behind MJD obviously, but i'm not sure that's the best idea at this point.

But either way, that's still a lot of holes in the offense...and the defense is, made of holes. There are decent players there, but we need high quality starters all over the place. And any high quality starters we add to this team this year, are still going to be high quality starters down the road if we cut ties with Gabbert after another season...we're still going to need them anyway. It's about patience i guess, as frustrating as that is when the team lays eggs all over the field with upsetting regularity.

I just want to see how things go when the playcalling isn't so horrid at the start. At the beginning of the game, the D was putting a lot of hits on Stafford and he looked rattled. If Gabbert had been allowed to sling it at the start, maybe things would have been different.

go back and look at the play by play for the game. Gabbert was allowed to sling the ball at the start, it just doesn't work when guys drop balls & the o-line gives up sacks. it's less the playcalling & more the lack of talent up front and among the wrs imo.

I just want to see how things go when the playcalling isn't so horrid at the start. At the beginning of the game, the D was putting a lot of hits on Stafford and he looked rattled. If Gabbert had been allowed to sling it at the start, maybe things would have been different.

go back and look at the play by play for the game. Gabbert was allowed to sling the ball at the start, it just doesn't work when guys drop balls & the o-line gives up sacks. it's less the playcalling & more the lack of talent up front and among the wrs imo.

Or maybe he's not looking downfield, not letting plays develop, and dumping it off to the check down faster than you can say "captain che-"

In no way am I defending to coaching or the play calling, it's been awful. Nor am I saying the WRs are constantly getting open, they aren't. But to suggest blaine isn't going downfield because he isn't allowed to is stupid. i saw shorts open a bunch yesterday and gabbert flat out didn't see him.

Gabbert wasn't awful yesterday, the second pick wasn't on him. But he sure wasn't good, either._________________

I agree. I still don't think he was put in the position to be early on yesterday though. There was a clear difference in playcalling between the Packers game and the beginning of the Lions game and I don't understand why._________________

I agree. I still don't think he was put in the position to be early on yesterday though. There was a clear difference in playcalling between the Packers game and the beginning of the Lions game and I don't understand why.

I didn't watch the game so I have no comment._________________
Thank you daboyle250 for the sig.